Nothing's page

Nothing wrote:

1) Point to the wrong house and say "Go there" without answering his quation.

2) Quickly glance at the wrong house and say "I will never tell you, fiend".
3) Recall a building where you once saw a child long ago and say "I saw a child in that building".
4) Attempt to bluff by saying "Your pathetic hunger is beneath me, go away and stop bothering your betters"
5) Lie and later get an Atonement Spell cast.

4 of those options are lying by omission. Specifically, what we are arguing they should be capable of doing.

Most are not lying by omission, (1) is simply not answering the question that the monster posed, instead telling it what the paladin wants it to do.

This specific hypothetical (the unarmed paladin being asked where the innocent child is so a monster can go murder them) is rather silly and unlikely to ever happen in a game. That said, the paladin still has a lot of options to mislead the monster.

1) Point to the wrong house and say "Go there" without answering his quation.
2) Quickly glance at the wrong house and say "I will never tell you, fiend".
3) Recall a building where you once saw a child long ago and say "I saw a child in that building".
4) Attempt to bluff by saying "Your pathetic hunger is beneath me, go away and stop bothering your betters"
5) Lie and later get an Atonement Spell cast.

This specific situation isn't covered by the rules, but there's no reason you couldn't use the same bluff check for telling a lie to instead tell the truth in such a way that the listener believes it's a lie (although a paladin known to be required to tell the truth would likely have a penalty to this roll).

In general, I would handle this more through role playing than through skill checks most of the time. When the guard asks "Have you seen Bob today, I have a warrant for his arrest" I'd make the paladin actually come up with a technically true yet misleading response like "I saw him some time ago, but I'm not sure where he is right now. I would suggest looking down by the docks." rather than just making a roll.

Edit: As to misleading truths, I don't see any call for that being against the code unless the act itself is dishonourable, such as misleading a search party so a lost boy isn't found before he starves to death, etc.

RAW - I'm not sure there's any good arguments either way.

I would rule it as physical bludgeoning damage, and let Arcane Strike, Divine Favor, and such apply, but YMMV.

@ nothing:

If someone moves 5 feet or 50 feet you would not know where to drop glitterdust if they successfully made the stealth check because you would not know where they were. Most likely they would move more than 5 feet so it would likely take some metagaming to know they did not move far unless the room was really small.

I would not consider centering an AoE on the last square someone was seen in before disappearing as metagaming, but to each their own.

When taking 5' steps for stealth you are an easy target for AoE spells like glitterdust, etc. Otherwise, if you're only taking one attack per round the rest of the party is probably going to be the focus.

If I was running a campaign or a lot of melee oriented monsters I'd probably add is some extra monsters with blindsight, tremorsense, etc. to some of the fights just to keep it interesting.

If it does become a problem just tell the player "Super stealth in combat is going to ruin the combats I have planned, please play something different or I'm going to have to make some house rules to nerf it".

Is combat actively ending every moment you're not in combat? I don't think so, but I guess you could say it is.

I don't really see a balance issue letting the ability remained active or charged until the next combat. I'm 99% sure that's not RAI, but it seems like the most natural reading of RAW.

If it ever became an issue the DM could just attack the character with a rat or some horseflies to start and end a combat with no other effect, unless the ability was at will. Most of my games have a number of smaller combats leading up to the more difficult ones, so it becomes a guessing game if you have limited uses and want to save them for the hard fights.

The DM can reveal the presence of an invisible object if they want to, but there's nothing in the rules (that I've found) that says they are supposed to. Mechanically the attack misses (if granting an AC bonus) or the attack is impossible (if total cover, the DM doesn't even have to say why if he wants to be a dick about it).

There are so many things don't make logical sense in this (or most any) game that I try not to worry about it. Falling from orbit and only taking 20d6 and walking away from it... All creatures freezing to death at 39F... Pageant of the Peacock...

And just for the sake of the conversation, an invisible wall is not just a thought experiment here. A Wall of Force spell is specifically said to be an invisible wall, so it stands a very good chance of coming up in any game with a 9th level Wizard in it.

I agree, but whether the attack hits the wall or not doesn't matter with a wall of force (unless you're shooting rays of disintegration or some such).

To be clear, I would house rule that missing does hit the cover, I just can't find any RAW to support that rule in PF.

So, what about blocking a line of effect?

Well suppose you're a wall... in order for you to block something, you must potentially be hit instead of the stuff behind you.
But if you, the invisible wall, can't be hit, you're not blocking anything are you?
See where this is going?

Yes, it blocks line of effect.

Should the wall be hit logically? Yes.
Is it hit RAW? No.

This Rule-Logic disconnect is pretty common in RPGs.

If the target gets all of the benefits of cover, including full cover, but the cover cannot be hit... then what exactly happens when you fire at somebody behind a full cover granting invisible wall? RAW says you cannot make an attack on someone behind full cover, so do the gods come down and physically prevent the archer from drawing his bow on someone hiding behind an invisible brick wall? Does the arrow just suddenly veer off at a 90 degree angle to avoid hitting it?

As to the first question - the same thing that would happen if an enemy moved behind cover and someone then shot an arrow at them. The DM could say "you can't attack him" or the attack simply misses (If I was the DM I would describe it as the arrow glancing off something solid, but others might do it differently)

Never said anything about changing the RAW. Its a discussion about what looks to me to be an oversight in the RAW and the best way to handle it if it should ever come up.

I think it's clear to me what RAW says happens, given a single target and a single wall, with any combination of them invisible. I could certainly be wrong, and the RAW often doesn't match up with what I would expect to happen in reality, but that's my view on it.

See, RAW indeed says "target the square"... but what about a small creature who is flying 5' above the ground? Do you have to select the right "cube"?

RAW - it doesn't matter where in the square the target is, whether standing on the ground or 100' in the air, if you attack that square (and the target is within range) you have a 50% chance of resolving the attack normally (still have to hit their AC.

Now what happens if there are multiple invisible creatures in a single square is not covered anywhere I've found in RAW, but I'd bet most DMs would just roll a die to see which one you targeted.

I heavily house rule (nerf) invisibility in any game I run and try not to abuse it in other people's games, so this is a good discussion.

What he's saying is:

if, in order to hit something invisible, you have to target the square (and have a 50% miss chance).
Not anything, just invisible creatures

then when a creature is 10' behind an invisible wall, it doesn't count as cover.

because the wall can't even be hit unless you target its square. Since it can't be hit accidentally, it certainly doesn't block anything.

Cover is a separate issue, which really doesn't interact with invisibility. Regardless of whether a creature or wall is invisible, if a wall is between the attacker and the target then the target gets the appropriate bonus to AC (based on how much of the target is covered).

RAW - The wall providing cover cannot be hit unless targeted, whether visible or not. The DM can always house rule that a miss will hit the cover, but that's not in the PF rules (you could hit the cover in 3.0, and perhaps 3.5 as well).

RAW - No, you must target a single square with each arrow.

If your DM allows otherwise, I don't think it's a bad house rule. Invisibility is OP anyway.

There's no 'turns undead like a cleric who is x levels lower' derived clause present in Pathfinder.

Actually, the Hospitaler archtype does channel at level -3 (Link)

I bet looking would help.

It's only guaranteed to land within one square of the target if thrown within one range increment

Throwing Splash Weapons

bloody ninjas...

Stacking templates has always been horribly unbalanced. Sure, I can make a CR 9 feral, hungry, enraged, advanced, giant, 1/2 white dragon, 1/2 fiend wyrmling red dragon with 53 strength, but I would never put that monstrosity in a real game.

If players had general access to templates I think there would be a general max of one template per creature, but since it's mostly a DM tool hopefully some common sense will prevail.

Hmmm... What happens if a dragon with vulnerability to an element becomes half-dragon of a dragon type with immunity to the element?

I'm betting on a TPK... (evil grin)

+6 actually, Good manueverability grants +4.

Only of you consider a fighter under the effects of a fly spell "A creature with a natural fly speed" (quote per the fly skill).

Personally, I would say the fly spell is an unnatural fly speed, but it's certainly a DM call. In any case, there's no need to be make fly checks in this situation.

I love the idea of a half-dragon dragon. Thank you very much for that!

Yes, Climbing, Swimming, Jumping, and Tumbling are all defined as a usage of movement speed (4x, 4x, 1x, and 1x respectively, without accelerated versions). So it's clear you *can* combine them.

I assume you would also include fly and burrow. Although I don't see any explicit language allowing you to combine the other movement modes like the climb skill has, it seems likely that RAI they should all be mixable like climb.

Pretty straight forward to use different ratios based on speed.

That's certainly reasonable, but without a written rule each GM can make up their own, like:

Swarm Subtype wrote:

A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures.

How can it do that if it has to stay in a 10x10 square?

The same way a 10x10 incorporeal creature would move through an object that didn't have any cracks or holes. If a creature can legally be in a square also occupied with objects (either because it overlaps them by being ethereal or it's moving through holes and cracks) you just move the plastic figure(s) there.

wouldn't solve how to protect a person tho without potion of fly.

This would be very situational, but in general you just need to keep any innocents more than 60' away from it (and further away than your party members) and the mindless horde of zombies should focus on you unless being directed by someone.

Which brings up an interesting point - a 20 hd zombie horde would be far more effective than 20 hd of individual zombies for an evil cleric or necromancer to control, how many individual zombies would you have to create to make them into a horde?

P.S. I see now that 7+ are called an apocalypse... now I want to throw 7 of these hordes at a party just so I can say "you see an apocalypse of zombies approaching"

If the slope is at least 60 degrees it counts as a wall (any less is a slop that starts as DC 0 to climb). Such a wall would likely have a base DC of 25 to climb, +5 for being slippery with grease (although you could make it a higher or lower DC by making it exceptionally smooth or giving it cracks big enough to serve as handholds).

Trap doors generally have a reflex save to avoid falling in them when they spring, although you get to decide the DC and could design it differently if you wanted to (my favorite is giving them a reflex save, but then also triggering a second trap that makes an attack roll to push them in anyway).

After getting knocked onto the greased sloped wall they can make a climb check at the climb DC + 10 (DC 40 more or less) to catch themselves, otherwise they take fall damage and can start combat with the pudding.

Then climbing out is fun! They have to make climb checks to get up the greased wall at DC 30ish (which they wouldn't have to make with spider climb), and on top of that they have to make a reflex save every round against the Grease spell's DC or fall (taking damage as usual).

Great catch concerro! I read the generic movement and the exploration and movement sections a few times, but I didn't see that in the climb skill.

So there is no rule you're aware of that allows it, but you and Cranky Dog would house rule it the same way. Thanks for your input.

Does anyone else know of anything in the written rules about mixing movement modes in a single action?

I also ran into this recently. I had always run then shapeable, but upon reviewing the swarm rules, that appears to be another holdover from my 3.5 assumptions. In pathfinder swarms must take up 10' blocks. The reason the minis are smaller is because 3.5. The malleable part only refers to larger swarms, which take up multiple 10' blocks. The minimum size is still 10x10.

Cite?

The rules say that large swarms are "completely shapeable", and the squares don't even have to be near each other (although they "usually" are). If they can't get smaller than 10x10 that seems less than completely shapable (since the rules specify 5' squares as the base unit of measurement they can't be shaped any smaller than that, otherwise they could).

Any attack bonus specific to a circumstance (like using a particular weapon type) adds to CMB only if that circumstance is met. So if you used your sword in the trip maneuver you would get the weapon focus bonus, but if you instead used your hand you wouldn't.

Actually there is no rule to prevent it. As long as you have movement left you can use it.There is no reason why someone could not walk up to a wall and then start climbing.

Pathfinder is a permissive rules system. There is also no rule saying that I can't kill every enemy by just pointing my finger at them, but because no rule explicitly allows me to do so I can't.

CrankyDog:
That's a very reasonable house rule, but is there anything in the actual rule set (or FAQ or Errata, or even a Dev comment) that says this is possible or how it would work?

Now that you mention mounts, anyone riding a horse or dog with a sling and a backpack full of sharpstones could also solo the horde with no risk (as long as they weren't in a confined space).

Interesting, I've never seen anyone suggest playing them as shapeable before now. When we've had them there are usually 3-6 separate swarms at once to fight, and keeping track of them if they were each shapeable would be a nightmare!

Is there any rule that allows a character to mix modes of movement within a single move action?

For example, say Bob has a base speed of 30' and a climb speed of 30'. On his action, Bob can walk 30' up to a wall (move action), and then climb 30' up (standard action).

Is there any way for Bob to walk 10' and climb 20' (move action) and then attack (standard action), or is this simply not allowed?

For Large size swarms I agree that they can't arbitrarily take up any 4 squares they want, and I think this is intentional (otherwise they would be more dangerous).

Please note that they can still occupy areas already occupied by other creatures or objects and any large creature can still squeeze into a 5' wide hallway.

There is no need to hover or ever make a fly check, the fighter can fly 30 ft each round and attack at the start or end of the movement as needed. This works on any terrain with about 20 ft clear above the zombie horde.

In more restricted terrain (such as in a cave) the fighter could instead attack the horde from 10 feet away, and then fly to get 70 feet away (or around a corner at least 30 ft away). The horde is too far away to charge and too stupid to play range manipulation games.

Of course if there's something important to protect everything changes, but so would fighting it on the negative energy plane or countless other complications.

The easiest way to deal with a horde of zombies is to drink a potion of fly and attack them with a glaive. The horde doesn't have reach or any ranged attacks, so a 1st level fighter could solo the entire horde this way without any risk (if he could afford the potion).

The horde type says it works as the swarm type except as noted. The swarm type says "The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares."

That means the colossal horde of zombies can fit down a (very long) 5' hallway and attack through a doorway using the full characteristics of the horde.

All teamwork feats the hunter possesses (from any source) are granted to her animal companion.

Other than the fact that the Mummy fear aura paralyzes people (preventing them from running away) and that spells from magic items are supposed to be at the minimum DC needed to cast the spell (16 if created by a wizard in this case), that sounds about right.

The character attempts to complete the action to the best of their ability. If this means picking up a rock or drawing a potion to bash over their heads, then that's what happens.

If there is literally no object that the victim could possibly get their hands on (standing naked and alone on a huge sheet of glass), then the character does nothing but babble incoherently, as the spell says.

Assuming channel *positive* energy:

Yes, if they are within range.
No, but it would if they were undead.

It's vague enough that a DM could limit it however they want, but I would let "strike" include any damage done with an attack roll (so no to fireball, but yes to rays).

Bigdaddyjug, I imagine something like this:

1) Party meets creature they can't talk to.
2) Oracle casts Oracle's Burden on creature, which is an offensive spell and starts combat.
3) Creature is in combat and can now understand celestial, (although it shouldn't understand any language as I stated above), and attacks the Oracle.
4) Oracle casts Charm Monster, creature fails save (with +5 bonus for being in combat).
5) Still in combat, Oracle commands creature to spar with him (fighting defensively, dealing non-lethal).
6) Everyone can still speak as they fight, Oracle asks questions and creature answers in celestial as they miss each other or occasionally deal non-lethal.
7) When done, Oracle asks creature to stand still for a minute before going home and acting as if the last 20 minutes never happened for the rest of the spell's duration.
8) Combat ends, Oracle heals creature.
9) Creature goes home, happy to have met a new friend for the next week or two, then hates the Oracle's guts and sets out to kill the manipulative bastard.

All perfectly legal except for step 3.

Spell Combat + Touch spell = 2 weapons = ability doesnt work.

This is the only point we disagree on. I don't think that casting and attacking with a touch spell in your offhand counts as an "... attack with a weapon in her other hand...", but this probably wouldn't even matter after getting spellstrike.

Seems like you should always animate a stone wall or door, as it will be immune to weapon damage save for the pick or hammer (which I find few adventurers carry).

Really? I can't think of the last melee character I saw who didn't carry around an earth breaker to use against objects or creatures who might damage their main weapon.

Smashing through doors, walls, floors, alters, and oozes seems to happen a lot for my group, though, so perhaps it's not something that other people worry about.

The key phrase is:

The target creature suffers all the hindrances and none of the benefits of your oracle's curse class feature.

So it would gain the hindrance of only being able to speak or understand Celestial while in combat without the benefit of having Celestial as a bonus language.

So by RAW it appears that if the target didn't already understand celestial, they would not be able to speak or understand any language while in combat, and outside of combat it would have no effect.

If the caster is on the material plane it does 1/2 damage (min 1), because it is spell damage that is not also force damage.

If the caster is on the ethereal plane it will do full damage.

Sure, they can also be combined with sneak attack as well.

Taking 20 on perception takes 2 minutes each time they do it.

The easiest way to reduce the time all these perception checks take is to assume all of the character are taking 10 unless they specifically say they are perceiving. That way they walk into the room, you describe what they notice without rolling, and the game moves along.

If that's still causing too many rolls, you could also restrict the players to one roll to detect anything before they automatically start taking 20.

Ravingdork - I think this is a good question for a FAQ, as written they are two different generic rules, and I don't think it's always clear which should apply (if they weren't meant to be the same).

(If there are any spells with a "full round" casting time that's not the "1 round" cast, I'm not aware of them.)

These are the ones I found right away:

I was curious whether there were any rulings as to how players might communicate intent with an animal companion in strict PFS. I was unable to find any, so maybe they just don't exist.

There are two official ways to do this:

With respect to #2, I am also aware of how the community feels about it, but I don't feel it was straightforward, and I was curious if anyone was aware of an official ruling on the subject. I explained why I felt there was ambiguity--they have the same name and thus are not clearly and obviously different. In fact, because they share a name, in most rulesets they would be the same ability, and one description would supersede the other. I get that the PF community disagrees, but I have seen no reason to rule with a random member of the community over my hypothetical interpretation.

The rules clearly state what each effect does, the fact that they were given the same name has no bearing on the separate rules they use. If there is any question in anyone's mind about this go look at the FAQ about Channel Energy, which despite having the same name, can be gained separately from Cleric, Oracle, and Paladin and each will operate completely independently.